If the server truly has no control over walkouts, they clearly can’t be fired for “incompetence” if it keeps happening to them. The idea that they can and should be fired instead of paying for the food makes no sense.
If, statistically speaking, they have a much greater number of walkouts, then they are probably participating in the scamming. But you need a decent sample size across the restaurant. One restaurant is not the same population as another restauarnt, its likely that Tuesday nights are different than Friday nights. So it takes statistical analysis - not one of those “40% of your sick days are on a Monday or Friday, we think you are taking long weekends” examples of management numerical illiteracy.
However, there is also likely some percentage of walkouts to be expected in the restaurant business that is part of the cost of doing business. The cost of doing business should be borne by the business owner - that’s why its a cost of doing business, not a cost of holding a job.
Not confused at all.
But there are different types of opinions.
“Vanilla is better than chocolate” is a purely subjective opinion, and is not provable or subject to falsification.
“Docking waiters undoubtedly deters some dine and dashers,” is quite different because, even if you couch it as an opinion, it is actually a factual statement whose truth can be determined. That is, the question of whether docking waiters will deter dine and dashers can be ascertained, independently of whatever you happen to believe about it.
You sound like some of my college students, some of whom seem to believe that just about any unsupported or incorrect statement can be included in a paper, without being questioned or penalized by the professor, as long as they classify it as an opinion. This seems to be a thing in schools these days.
Only corporate serving jobs I’ve had employ this practice. In small business, the owner actually cares about their employees.
Then why don’t we charge them if they screw up an order and a steak has to be tossed? As mentioned earlier, why doesn’t a company charge their IT guy if he screws up and costs the company a ton of money? Why doesn’t a lab charge a tech if they break a test tube? All jobs carry the potential for an employee mistake to cost the company money. Why should this be the one thing where the server gets charged?
And what possible, possible justification is there for charging the price of the meal, not the cost to the restaurant?
Thinking about this, the policy would actually encourage theft. Think about it - from the restaurant’s point of view there’s no financial difference between a meal paid for by the customer and a meal paid for by the server. As long as somebody else is paying for the meal, the restaurant makes money.
Now think about if from the thief’s point of view. Who’s more likely to order an expensive meal - a customer who’s planning on paying the cost of that meal or a thief who’s planning on running out without paying? It seems likely thieves will order more expensive meals.
So for the restaurant, thieves are actually better than honest customers. A smart owner should advertise that his restaurant has lax security.
This is not standard and does not happen in reputable places. For some reason, it’s something that gets repeated a lot (like the myth about cashiers being legally responsible for register shortages), and I think people think it happens more than it does.
Everyone I know has worked in a restaurant in some capacity, many waiting tables. It’s basically required where I grew up. I have never heard of anyone paying the tab for thieves or being expected to.
The world is a mysterious and inconsistent place.
The thief occupied a table that could have been occupied by full-paying customers. Many restaurants will charge 50% for walkouts, many claim they will charge, but seldom or never really do, and many don’t charge at all. The point is that it IS the staff’s job to make sure customers pay, regardless of the consequence for failing. Yes, sometimes it is difficult, maybe even impossible. A lot of jobs don’t have a perfect success rate, no matter how hard one tries. The threat of having to pay is a personal incentive for them to do their best. Keeping the business profitable keeps those same workers with a place to work.
Ridiculous. A good wait person is extremely valuable to the restaurant. Driving them away would not increase profits.
Are you sure about that? Most businesses have the opposite policy and tell their employees not to try to prevent a crime in progress if it occurs at the workplace. Being as it’s a fairly universal policy in small businesses, I don’t see why restaurants would be the exception that expects its employees to stop criminals.
Perhaps you’re confused on what it means to have an opinion.
“The Mona Lisa is an overrated piece of shit.” - Statement of Opinion
“Some people don’t dine and dash because they know it personally affects their waiter.” - Statement of Objective Fact
Everybody is entitled to their own opinions. Nobody is entitled to their own reality.
Last time I managed a petrol station for that was part of a chain of 9 in my “county”.
The policy on drive-offs varied by manager.
Corporate policy was that the cashier was NOT expected to pay.
But some managers forced the cashier to pay regardless (because the number of drive offs was part of the performance rating)
The manager I trained under (the same one that threw a clipboard at me for not allowing a customer account to become overdrawn) forced staff to pay - the most senior manager in the district chewed her out when he heard and argued that no way should the staff EVER be expected to pay.
I do think (with no actual evidence) that customers who believe the server will be stuck paying their bill would be significantly less likely to dine and dash. This is not proof in any way, but let me just admit to being the asshole who did that exactly one time, many years ago as an asshole teenager. My friend and I weren’t planning it, it was impulsive. We knew the server wouldn’t be responsible because we had another friend who was a waitress at a different location in the chain. We actually left a tip to ensure that we were only stiffing the corporation, not the waitress (granted, it was stupid to assume the “tip” wouldn’t be considered a partial payment for the bill, but we didn’t think of it that way at the time). We would never have done it if we believed that the server would have to pay out of her own pocket.
Anyway, obviously we were completely wrong to do it, but I think the policy of requiring servers to pay for dine and dashers is horrible even if it does stop some people from doing it.
No, it’s because it’s not an employer’s role to fine employees. It should not be possible to go to work and lose money. The only reason this bizarre system ever comes into play is because servers have little leverage. It’s a way to suck a little cash out of someone who doesn’t have any way to say no.
It’d probably be easier on your blood pressure if you could adapt your expectations based on the setting you are in. Because a poster expressing her opinion on a social media site isn’t expected to undergo the same rigor as a college student defending his thesis, especially in a forum that solicits opinions.
…Says the man who had to edit what I actually said in order to support his argument. FTR, here’s what I ACTUALLY said, which couldn’t have been more clear that I was expressing my personal opinion (which I still stand by, BTW) and not a fact:
“I’d imagine that there are a number of people who don’t dine and dash BECAUSE they know that the waiter would have to pay for it.”
“I opined that the policy of docking waiters undoubtedly deters some dine and dashers.”
Actually, you DID present actual evidence, which was your mindset when you dined and dashed. You wouldn’t have done it had you known that the waitress would have to absorb the loss. That supports my theory, so thank you.
I agree. Perhaps it’s good that it’s “common knowledge” that the waitstaff would have to pay, even if that isn’t always actually the case.
By making them pay for walkouts? A lot of restaurants don’t do this - as actualliberalnotoneofthose says, it isn’t a standard - its some jerks. So a good waiter made to pay for walkouts goes to a restuarant were there are fewer walkouts (get out of that Perkins for bar close - a friend did that for a bit and had lots of walkouts - they didn’t have to pay), and into a restaurant that combines low walkouts (he didn’t get tips from walkouts either) and a management that picks up the bill.
[quote=“Dangerosa, post:117, topic:675919”]
By making them pay for walkouts? A lot of restaurants don’t do this - as actualliberalnotoneofthose says, it isn’t a standard - its some jerks. So a good waiter made to pay for walkouts goes to a restuarant were there are fewer walkouts (get out of that Perkins for bar close - a friend did that for a bit and had lots of walkouts - they didn’t have to pay), and into a restaurant that combines low walkouts (he didn’t get tips from walkouts either) and a management that picks up the bill.**
If you are getting a large number of walkouts, you either have a shitty job (like Perkins) or are doing a shitty job. It CAN happen in spite of one’s best efforts, but if it is a frequent occurrence, the job isn’t working out.
Whether you are failing because your job is impossible or because you are incompetent at it, the end result is that you and the job are a poor fit.
The restaurant would make a ton of money on Day 1. It’s on Day 2, when they have no waitstaff left, that there’d be a problem.
Here is an analogy: let’s say a restaurant owner takes aside a new waitress and says “You know, you were late today. The rules say I have to write you up for that, and if it happens again, ever, I have to fire you. I know you wouldn’t want that. So I tell you what: if you just slip me a $20, we will pretend it didn’t happen”.
That would be clearly extortion. And it may “make no sense” to you that actually firing her for being late is ok, but making her pay off her demerits is wrong, but it’s pretty firmly ensconced in employment custom. The reason for this that that employers have a reason not to want to fire good employees, so there is a balance: they aren’t going to fire you over something unless it really is a big deal, because they want to keep you. But experience has shown that what employers can do is use a low level of dread to perpetually extort money from a particular type of employee: the sort that is highly economically dependent on the job and cannot afford even a brief job search. This tends to be people like servers. It’s extortion.